Listen up, physics cripples
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Hyundai Service Delhi | Hyundai Showroom Gurgaon
Next: Who is really the 'personality' that calls himself 'Inertial' ??!!
From: Jonathan Schattke on 5 Jun 2010 14:40 On 6/5/2010 1:32 PM, Patok wrote: > Jonathan Schattke wrote: >> On 6/5/2010 11:45 AM, Patok wrote: >>> Uncle Al wrote: >>>> http://snarxiv.org/vs-arxiv/ http://snarxiv.org/vs-arxiv/highscores/ >>>> Choose between a published physics paper title and technobabble. Make >>>> the binary choice, enjoy your running reality score. >>> >>> No one can do better than random on that one. Only if one knew all >>> papers published in the area - but that's impossible in principle. The >>> generator is very good. >>> >> >> Actually, I ran 66%. Which is about right, considering I'm an >> undergrad with interest in the field. > > But how did you do it? Did you recognize some of the real papers? I > tried only 3 actually, :) because I was more interested in /how/ it > works, than in the test itself. Of the three, the only one I got right > was where the title of the fake one was PDFs -- hardly a real article > could afford to be called that. While for the other two, even after the > truth was revealed, the titles of the fake ones looked more (or at least > as) authentic as the real ones. > P.S. - I did 10 more of them, and got 70% this time, but still maintain > that the generator is very good. Actually, by knowing the headlines from ScienceNews. Their paper generator is good, but not perfect. It's a fun little test.
From: eric gisse on 5 Jun 2010 18:27 Uncle Al wrote: [...] > Chemist Uncle Al scored 32/51, 63%. Uncle Al's strategy was wholly > trivial - based upon the flow of text not the content: What would an > academic puff pigeon not publish as a title? > I tried both content and grammar and barely scored better. Even some stuff that struck me as obvious nonsense was actually real. There's a lesson here for the HEP crowd.
From: blackhead on 5 Jun 2010 20:48 On 5 June, 17:11, Uncle Al <Uncle...(a)hate.spam.net> wrote: > http://snarxiv.org/vs-arxiv/http://snarxiv.org/vs-arxiv/highscores/ > > Choose between a published physics paper title and technobabble. Make > the binary choice, enjoy your running reality score. > > -- > Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ > (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm 38% to start - rejected title if it looked too long winded. 62% - inverted above strategy. Larry
From: Wayne Throop on 5 Jun 2010 21:01 :: http://snarxiv.org/vs-arxiv/ :: http://snarxiv.org/vs-arxiv/highscores/ : blackhead <larryharson(a)softhome.net> : 38% to start - rejected title if it looked too long winded. : 62% - inverted above strategy. Indeed. I seemed to get 63% if I just chose the longest title consistently. With some minor tiebreaaking strategies for titles of roughly equal length, like, if a title seemed *too* much like gibberish, choose it as genuine, since the randomly generated ones are unlikely to be quite so... gibberish-y. Wayne Throop throopw(a)sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
From: Brian Davis on 6 Jun 2010 07:46
On Jun 5, 2:28 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...(a)hate.spam.net> wrote: > If a peer-reviewed published paper's title cannot be > differentiated from machine-generated technobabble, then the > discipline is corrupt. This would strongly depend on who is doing the discrimination. My six- year-old would have a hard time separating intelligent design papers from ones written about evolution. I think there still might be a difference in the field's validity. For that matter, a whole lot of the adults around me have similar issues. Is that the fault of the field of study... or the level of comprehension of the reader? > Examine the local confluence of babbling idiots who cannot be > educated in the maths and will not acknowledge observed physical > reality. sci.physics is an Augean stables' dung heap. Taking sci.physics as prototype might be... slightly biased. Towards crazy idiots. -- Brian Davis |